Tweet Checking: Corbynite Brexit Quislings, and the Role of Our Elected Representatives

You always wonder if things can get any worse, like a perverse bet between your Id and Superego that your Ego has to deal with when they actually do.

A Tory MP blocked the anti-upskirting law against the wishes of virtually every other MP, supposedly according to him not because he was a reactionary creep, but some balls about his objection actually regarding “who controls the House of Commons on Fridays”, before he accused the government of acting like Putin. Even if he had a legitimate point about order of business, this is what he chose to make a stand on? I think James Bloodworth put it best: “Imagine choosing this f****** hill to die on”.

The idea of “Lexit” came back from the dead for what must be the eighth time as Corbynites gathered in their masses to defend abstention on the EEA amendment and demonise any Labour MPs who fell out of line.

And the week was capped off with two Norwegian lawmakers nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, even though there is “little concrete evidence that [his “agreement”] will lead to complete denuclearization in the near future.”

I watched John Carpenter’s 1986 action-fantasy classic Big Trouble in Little China last Saturday, and I remember them discussing the many rooms of hell… By the gods, they had no idea.

5. Alex Nunns

Nunns really believes in this tweet, because he tweeted a variation of it three separate times on two different days (here (this one), here, and here).

The problem with this is not that the amendment might have passed, but that the Labour leadership showed a lack of sense and guts in not throwing their support behind.

Just because something cannot pass is not a good enough reason not to take a stand—I mean, isn’t so much of the Corbyn mythos based on his uncompromising opposition to the Iraq War and the 2015 welfare bill even though it was impossible to stop them?

He didn’t abstain there, so why here? Why does the Labour leadership insist on ignoring the reality that leaving the single market will be the worst possible thing for British working people?

4. Elon Musk

It turns out Muskovites that your messiah is not only a naughty boy, he’s a foolish one too.

Socialism, and Marxism in particular, make a big point also that the worst form of wealth accumulation is when it is accumulated passively with any actual labour on the part of the individual—as far as I can tell, Musk has not only never invented a single thing, he has spent most of his “working” life as an investor who uses the labours and ideas of others to expand his already bloated mass of wealth.

Elsewhere, he does try to redefine socialism not as “shift[ing] resources from [the] most productive to least productive, pretending to do good” (not that any real socialist has ever thought of their ideology like that), but as seeking the “greatest good for all”, but that’s utilitarianism, not socialism, and even then it’s all very simplistic and banal for such a supposed genius.

3. Laura Smith

Three things: I’ve never insisted—nor have I ever seen any Europeanist seriously suggest—that people voted to leave because they are “racists”. However, I have consistently argued that given that so much of the leave vote was driven by an irrational anti-immigrant sentiment, that a great deal of bigotry and xenophobia was indulged in to win the referendum (Russian interference notwithstanding).

Secondly, to say “they didn’t know what they were voting for” is borne out by the polls that show that Leave voters are continuously divided over what Brexit really means for them—including figures that show that only 35% thought that Brexit actually meant leaving the single market. 56% of Britons surveyed believe in “maintaining current arrangements, meaning frictionless trade and free movement of people across the continent.” This includes one in five Leave voters.

And finally, as to it not being “the place of politicians to tell the people they were wrong”, I shall quote my favourite (next to Schmitt) conservative philosopher, Edmund Burke: “[an MP’s] unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

Enough said.

2. Richard Graham

Another example of how Brexit was supposed to return our sovereignty but in fact is an attempt by some to gut it.

Parliament, in being the sovereign body, that is the ultimate source of political power in this country, and being composed in the Commons of individuals elected to represent the people of this country, should be the body openly debating and voting on the terms of Brexit—not a secret cabal of actors handpicked by the executive.

Also: how would holding negotiations in secret be helpful, when the other party—the European Commission—has already been very open in what is acceptable and what is not to them?

But let’s be frank: Graham’s real aim here is not the best possible deal, but no deal at all—he and his ilk, not happy with the constitutional crisis they’ve already caused, desire to make the act of negotiation so long and arduous that we crash out.

Also in Disclaimer

President Donald Trump late Sunday threatened Iran in a tweet, warning Iranian President Hassan Rouhani of “consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before.” Just another week in Washington. Duisclaimer rounds up Trump's week.

Harry Leslie Smith thinks that Albert Speer had more integrity than Tony Blair. You donot have to be a Blairite or supporter of the Iraq War to see this as insane: the left promoting a Nazi. Diusclaimer looks at some of the worst of Twitter.